Jordan Scopa

Jordan’s representative work includes:

• Boehringer v. JAMP Pharma Corporation, 2024 FC 1198 - Successful defence to the alleged infringement of a formulation patent related to an idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (“IPF”) medication.
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2024 FCA 72 – Successfully represented Apotex in an appeal affirming a trial judgment finding invalidity of a patent relating to the use of an ED medication.
• AbbVie Corporation v. JAMP Pharma Corporation, 2023 FC 1520 - Successfully opposed action for permanent injunction in respect of six asserted patents.
• Sandoz Canada v. Janssen, 2023 FCA 221 – Retained as appellate counsel after an unsuccessful challenge to the validity of a patent related to a pulmonary arterial hypertension medication.
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2023 FCA 125 – Successful resistance to an appeal from a trial decision invalidating a patent relating to the dose of an ED medication, on the basis of obviousness.
• Pharmascience v. Teva Canada Innovation, 2022 FCA 207 – Acted as appellate counsel on issues relating to the impact of settlement overtures to costs awards.
• Nova Chemicals v. Dow Chemical, 2022 SCC 43 – Acted as counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, on the leading case relating to the accounting of profits remedy for patent infringement (and the role of non-infringing options).
• AbbVie Corporation v. JAMP Pharma Corporation, 2022 FC 1209 – Successful representation of JAMP in a judicial review application resulting in JAMP retaining its Notice of Compliance for its adalimumab product.
• GEMAK Trust v. Jempak Corporation, 2022 FCA 141 – Retained as appellate counsel, resulting in a successful appeal overturning a Judgment dismissing an action for patent infringement.
• Pharmascience v. Teva Canada Innovation, 2022 FCA 2 – Acted as appellate counsel on issues relating to the requirement for “proper disclosure” of the factual basis and sound line of reasoning supporting a sound prediction of utility.
• Teva Canada Innovation v. Pharmascience, 2020 FC 1158 – Successful challenge to the validity of a patent related to a multiple sclerosis medication, on the basis of obviousness.
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2020 FC 816 – Successful challenge to the validity and infringement of a patent relating to the dose of an ED medication, on the bases of anticipation and obviousness.
• Eli Lilly v. Apotex, 2020 FC 814 – Successful challenge to the validity and infringement of a patent relating to the process to make the active ingredient in an ED medication, on the bases of anticipation and obviousness.
• Evolution Technologies v. Human Care Canada, 2019 FCA 209 – Successful appeal of a trial judgment enjoining the sale of a major mobility-aid product and awarding financial remedies on account of patent infringement.
• Evolution Technologies v. Human Care Canada, 2019 FCA 11 – Successful motion to stay a trial judgment enjoining the sale of a major mobility-aid product and awarding financial remedies, pending the outcome of an appeal.
• Apotex v. Eli Lilly, 2018 FCA 217 – Successful appeal of a trial award of $75 million in pre-judgment interest as damages for patent infringement.
• Amgen Canada v. Apotex, 2015 FC 1261 – Successful challenge to the validity of a patent relating to a biologic medication, on the basis of obviousness.
• Canada (National Revenue) v. Amdocs Canadian Managed Services, 2015 FC 1234 – Successful opposition to an application for a compliance order pursuant to section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act.
• Eli Lilly Canada v. Apotex, 2015 FC 1016 - Successful challenge to the validity and infringement of a patent relating to the formulation of an ED medication, on the basis of obviousness.
• Apotex v. Merck & Co., 2015 FCA 171 – Successful in the adoption of the legal relevance of non-infringing alternatives in the assessment of damages for patent infringement.
• Alcon Canada v. Apotex, 2014 FC 791 - Successful challenge to the validity of a patent relating to the formulation of a glaucoma medication, on the basis of obviousness.
• Alcon Canada v. Apotex, 2014 FC 699 - Successful challenge to the validity of a patent relating to a glaucoma medication, on the bases of anticipation and obviousness.
• Apotex v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada, 2012 FC 553 and Teva Canada v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada, 2012 FC 551 and 2012 FC 552 – Claims for damages pursuant to section 8 of the Patented Medicines (NOC) Regulations by multiple generic pharmaceutical companies relating to an anti-hypertensive medication.